18Apr11

Protecting civilians just a pretext in Libyan intervention

Recently Harvard Professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr spoke about his new book, The Future of
Power at the Japan Society in New York City.

During his talk, Nye defined soft power as the ability to attract or persuade others to give you
what you want without having to use coercion.

For Nye, it is not the facts that matter in "the information age." Instead, soft power is as
important as, or even more important than, military action in gaining one's objectives.

As he says in an online article, "In a global information age, success is not determined just by
who has the biggest army, but also by who has the best story."

In the Q and A period at the end of his talk, Nye was asked about Libya. Nye responded that
what President Barack Obama had done was exactly right in waiting until he had the needed
narrative for the action in Libya.

It was important that the US not be seen as once again attacking a Muslim country. Instead
the Arab League and the UN Security Council resolutions provided the narrative of "a
legitimate enforcement of humanitarian responsibility to protect civilians."

Nye pointed out that unlike former US President George Bush, Obama had managed to get
the approval of the United Nations and was acting with the support of other countries,
including France and the UK.

According to Nye, the narrative could be framed as the US taking "collective responsibility,"
not as undertaking military intervention.

But there's a problem with Nye's argument. By stressing the importance of the narrative, Nye
is focusing on how the world perceives the action the US is taking, rather than on the nature
of the action itself.

What is actually happening in Libya is that NATO is supporting an armed insurgency against
the government of Libya. NATO bombing is not protecting civilians in Libya, but protecting
an armed insurrection against the government of Libya.

The March 17 UN Security Council meeting that passed Resolution 1973 authorized the use
of military force against Libya. Several ambassadors explained how the resolution was needed
to protect nonviolent peaceful protesters in Libya.

None mentioned that there was an armed insurrection in Libya against the government, even if
it began after the government opened fire on civilian protesters, and that the resolution was
authorizing military intervention supporting the armed insurgents in that military conflict.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin noted a few days later that the claim to protect civilians
was the "pretext" which "effectively allowed intervention in a sovereign state."

During a debate in 2009 at the UN over the concept of the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P),
the Belgium physicist and philosopher of science, Jean Bricmont, offered a critique of R2P.

He explained the importance of sovereignty as an essential part of the foundation of the United
Nations.

"The very starting point of the United Nations was to save humankind from 'the scourge of
war,'" he said, referring to the two world wars. It is only the respect for sovereignty that
protects the people of the small nations from the self-serving interests of the great powers, he
argued.

Those proposing the need to adopt the R2P doctrine were undermining this respect for
sovereignty and in the process encouraging foreign military intervention and war.

Nye's presentation suggests that a convincing narrative has a power to gain support for actions
despite the actual nature of the actions.

There are netizens around the world, however, who recognize the deceit represented by the
claim that NATO actions in Libya are to protect civilians.

Articles and debates on the Internet demonstrate that many netizens recognize the self-serving
national interests of the great powers that are engaged in military actions against the Libyan
government.

"A new colonialism era has started," writes one netizen.

"The UN is but a puppet in the hands of Western powers," observes another.

"Civilization, democracy, freedom … It is all about national interest," writes still another
netizen.

Such discussion and analysis demonstrate that the Internet makes it possible to challenge false
narratives and to contribute to creating a more accurate narrative that conforms to the facts of
the situation.

[Source: By Ronda Hauben, The Global Times, Xinjiang, 18Apr11]

This document has been published on 03May11 by the Equipo Nizkor and Derechos Human Rights. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.